Isn't it a lot better when Kaz isn't on the forum? You and him can fling shit back and forth at each other and that keeps you off the streets and out of the adults' conversations, but it only results in childish oneliners that are annoying to the others.

Yesterday was a mess even though nearly everybody else ignored you and him.

It is certainly more vital to existence as a human being than medical care. Nearly every American supports some form of government payments for health care at least as a last resort for people who don't have the money to buy insurance or pay cash for treatments.

So wouldn't food be even more so? Suppose a person states openly that they are perfectly capable of working but that they won't work and no one can make them. Should the government provide them minimum food to survive, such as oatmeal, beans and rice?

Can a libertarian go along with that for humanitarian reasons even though it requires initiation of force against people who do work in order to take their wealth to buy the beans, oatmeal and rice?

No, food is not a right.

However, people can't be expected to adhere to this while starving. You can talk about rights all you want while they're in your pantry eating your food and shooting or stabbing you if you try to stop them.

This is, in my opinion, one of the rational compromises society may be forced to make between the ideal and reality. I have no problem being forced to give people bread and oatmeal as long as the problem isn't subsidized to such a degree that it grows out of control.

Ideally, a person on welfare should get only and exactly enough to stay alive, not enough or high enough quality to sustain a pregnancy. If we did this, we'd also save a lot on health care not having to take care of all the fat diabetic poor people who use all their free time to eat candy you can buy with EBT.